What do you think of the Bakshi cartoon?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bakshi used a stable of artists who employed a technique called rotoscoping. A live film was shot of actors playing parts and then artists drew over it to produce animated characters. It was hardly new or state of the art. It dates back to 1915 and was developed by Max Fleishcher. Bakshi was merely trying to produce something cheaply and quickly instead of doing traditional Disney animation with 24 hand drawn frames per second.

Rotoscoping is certainly an old technique; however, this was the first entirely rotoscoped animated feature and utterly alien to many viewers. Traditional cel animation was planned for the film, and some was actually shot, but severe budget constraints canned the idea. It was perhaps the uniqueness of the filming that alienated many viewers used to Disney animation (I will say in Bakshi's defense that Disneys animation in the 70's was, in contrast, even more deplorable, not anything like masterpieces such as Bambi, Pinocchio and Fantasia).

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I would not call Boromir as a Viking or Aragorn as more or less a Native American tracker as faithful to the JRRT text. They were both ridiculous.

You are, of course, correct about Sven 'Forkbeard' Boromir; however, the rugged, tanned and weatherbeaten features of Bakshi's Boromir evoked Tolkien more closely than Viggo's poster-pinup image, appearing foul but ultimately fair (Viggo looks ready for a second career as a rock singer). Aragorn was, after all, a ranger who spent many decades in the wild. It's rather like T.H. White representation of Lancelot as somewhat ugly but noble, rather than the epitome of a handsome preux chevalier.

It would have been interesting to see what Bakshi could have produced if he had Jackson's deep financial backing.

[A Little Green]

I actually watched the Bakshi cartoon around a week ago, and it really isn't that bad. Some things I found much better than in PJ's films, actually. For example the scene where they encounter the nazgûl in the Shire was really creepy. Also, I liked the way Bakshi and his crew had the daring to go on with their own artistic vision of the story, yet still remaining faithful to the original. The atmosphere was at times very strong, for example in the scene where the Rohirrim attack the orcs. I loved also the way things were given time.

There was of course much that I didn't like. Legolas' face was mostly ridiculous (though from a distance he actually looked much more convincing than Orlando Bloom), Boromir and Agagorn's clothes were horrid (Aragorn wouldn't have been so bad if he would have had trousers on... ), Saruman was wrong (he had no charisma to his voice and his character was reduced to a grumpy, evil old fellow) and Galadriel looked like a barbie doll or a Disney princess. Gollum was ugly, but on the other hand, though I love Andy Serkis' Gollum, I liked the idea that Gollum isn't at all cute.

And the balrog had wings!

[Sauron the White]

Mothoron - I have long suspected that the Bakshi film was not a hit was because the visual style was so jarringly inconsistent to the viewer. He tried to combine too many different techniques and it all came out as a mess. While he did rotoscope the main figures to gain a realistic look, his orcs were fuzzy and looked like film negatives. And then he hired some talented painters to do beautiful paintings of buildings like Rivendell but then had other landscape backgrounds which looked fuzzy and badly out of focus. For Bakshi, it was a technique born out of necessity and economics. If it worked, it would have been hailed as the work of an innovator..... (see the recent CLOVERFIELD movie which made a fortune for bad camera work) .... but it simply did not work due to its unevenness.

We would differ greatly on Viggo as Aragorn versus the Bakshi version. I felt Mortensen was nearly perfect in the role and he perfectly captured the right combination a character that both men and women viewers could relate to for completely different reasons. I still think that the Bakshi version only needs the stereotypical headress to be a complete Native American.

I think the human character in the GULLIVERS TRAVELS 1939 by Fleischer - was also completely rotoscoped... and not very well.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

. . . Viggo's poster-pinup image, appearing foul but ultimately fair (Viggo looks ready for a second career as a rock singer). Aragorn was, after all, a ranger who spent many decades in the wild. . . .

Designer stubble is so . . . fake, a kind of costive, cheap, would-be swagger. I think he would have been laughed off the Survivor island even before the competition started.

But then I think both Aragorn and Faramir are difficult characters to carry off, particularly in today's culture, caught as we are between Rambo/Bruce Willis and Will Farrell/Ben Affleck. I don't think either Bakshi or Jackson even attempted to present them as contemporary versions of Tolkien's characters. That concept of masculinity just don't cut it no more, no more, no more.

Just one woman's opinion, of course.

[skip spence]

Did you notice the similarity of some of the scenes in R/B's and PJ's films? It's been a while since I've seen either version of the trilogy but one scene stands out in my memory: when the Nazgul enter the Hobbits' room in Bree and stab the pillows. That one was almost identical in both movies, wasn't it? And it wasn't taken from the book either.